Polygamy- does it work

[BlessedLion]

3 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

I'd argue this is 2 sides of the same coin.

 

Fun fact, woman are 40-50% more likely to orgasm with their lover than their secure partner. Therefore proving the theory that they cheat like this to secure what they percieve as better genes. The book "Red Queen" goes into this in depth

Bc Orgrasm and pregnancy are related

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

Thanks man! 

Ralston is amazing, and you have to realize as a student of his, his main goal is to raise your consciousness and face your own bs, not be your friend. Which is why lots of people might see him as a "dick", but in reality he is a MASSIVE SAINT, just doesn't act like one. I like that about him, he doesn't coddle or pander. 

 

Still active on YouTube, thanks for asking, but been slowing down. I love writing and making videos, but find the low view counts and algorithm competition to be kinda draining. I might move more towards 1 on 1 coaching, courses, or retreat type stuff. Hope your good brother!

Awesome. Yeah I think everyone is starting to expand and go in other directions as I hear it's becoming harder and harder on YouTube to make a living.  Leo basically stopped.  I'm good thanks man. Good to see you again. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Jordan of the Shire]

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

I think this framing misunderstands the level of detachment that's happening for someone who is actually on a path of transcendence. 

It's not about "going against your desires." That's more of a repression and "fighting with your humanity to maintain a spiritual identity and worldview" thing.

It's about fundamentally seeing through the illusion of the character you're playing and the entire reality that you exist within as that character. 

It's realizing that you're a character in a story. And that character will never transcend the confines of that character... including the desires, needs, limitations, and attachments that come with that character.

Instead, it's about realizing the entire book that you character exists in was always a falsehood... and even your desire to transcend your wants and needs is part of that story and is used to build and reinforce that story.

There are practical embodiment practices for this, and you don't need to live in a monastery or renunciate worldly life to experience this. I think there's a sort of romanticizing of the monk. Monk life is easier for the practice because you don't have worldly responsibilities, you're whole life is practice. But the practice of seeing through the illusion can be done whether you're sitting in a cave in tibet or talking to your mother.

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

In the same way that Gandalf is written to be Gandalf... his enlightenment is fundamentally false, as Gandalf isn't real. It's just part of the story. 

The same is true of the Emerald character. She dissolved along with the entire existence she lived in. And there was pure nothingness. But Emerald never become enlightened... she ceased to exist.

Then, the nothingness eventually reconstituted the Emerald story and avatar because that's what it preferred. And that's when Emerald the character stopped trying to be anything other than an ordinary human with all the ordinary human patterns, needs, and desires.

So, I don't want to re-attach myself to the previous strivings to be desire-less... as all of that was just extra stuff in the Emerald story. And it wasn't even fun.

Instead of being like Bruce Wayne trying his damndest to be Batman and transcend his ordinary humanity...

I'd much rather be Superman performing the most convincing Clark Kent disguise that he can muster.

Enlightenment has different meanings to different people. To me there are stages to it. When we are talking about these things I'm also holding space for the validity of multiple perspectives. 

I hear you about not wanting to re-attach yourself to strivings to be desire-less, and to play Clark Kent. 

What I'm saying has less to do with being desire-less and being able to choose to go with or not with your desire. I'm more referring to self-control. 

Because I think there is an excess too in denying humanity, as with going with our desires. It's like what are we here to do? This is a beautiful experience. We can penetrate the veil and see the not-self nature of things ... but then what ... well it's all love then. But that's not for sure either. We have humanity that fluxuates. And this can make experience better or worse.

The philosophy I like is that full enlightenment is not just realizing that we have a view of things as being god and we are avatars of this experience, therefore anything goes and we can act anyway we choose because nothing matters. I think this is a form of spiritual bypassing. The philosophy (and lets get to the bones - the practice I like) is choosing what to focus on and empower, such that it nourishes my tissues, brings radiance to the awareness, and benefits the people around me.

I'll have to watch the relativism series by Leo again because he goes into great depth about the traps and layers of understanding. Pretty cool stuff anyways.

 

10 hours ago, Jordan of the Shire said:

I think statement 1 ...

Statement 2 ...

I'm laughing at myself for starting my response like this ... so robotic hahaha

 

9 hours ago, Emerald said:

That makes sense.

My perspective is directly shaped by my experiences of ego transcendence and ego death.

And it helped me realize that the avatar game was the preferred path of this iteration... and most iterations within humanity. 

Very few people genuinely prefer the game of immersing in the game to transcend it.

And it took the direct experience of transcending it and dissolving completely to realize that that wasn't the presence... and that there was nothing to escape about the illusion. 

It's just that my understanding was, "Transcendence is always preferable over immersion within the illusion."

And the dissolution challenged that hierarchy I had created in my mind. And I realized that I don't prefer the path of transcendence. I prefer the path of embodiment.

And I'm always skeptical when a non-monk claims to be wanting to transcend the Earthly embodiment.

I find it far more likely that there's an identity or experience within the Earthly embodiment that they're trying to attach to... sort of like a realization of the ideal self.

But that's not what transcendence is about. Transcendence is throw the character and the book in the fire, and simply exist as pure infinite consciousness.

And "I've" had  some "experiences' like that. But even those experiences are only important and meaningful to me in relation to the Emerald story.

And true transcendence is not that.

I perceive there may be a claim here that implies I am "a non-monk claims to be wanting to transcend the Earthly embodiment." 

Just to make it clear , this is an embodiment experience for me with transcendence in mind - but, this is also a playful experience on the basis that I think everyone is a little bit crazy and that nobody really knows whats going on ... and that people have kind of got a lot of woo woo fairy like notions, and most people, seem to think they're correct ... which is fine, I'm holding space for those too, because who knows ... but my feeling is that, there's a lot of fluff, conceptualization, and nonsense in the world.

So I'm fulfilling my own journey through meditative practices and embodiment practices. What is revealed to me through grounded experiences, and investigation is kind of how I'm going about life. While this experience has a relativistic truth to it, I don't think it is such that we as humans would be wise to treat it like an anything goes experience. But under certain perspectives, such as Bashar like interpretations, or Alan Watts, or Anadamayi Ma, Good or evil (of course there is dualistic notion and absolute notion where nothing is good or evil) are just god playing a game. While this is the case ... I don't understand why some people are oblivious and some people are more aware. 

 People like Jesus, Buddha, and other saints and mystics (which I suppose you could say, (playfully) the jedi, because I know there's the other kind of Mystic that is more about hate, dominance, and control, with the goal in mind to align with darker spiritual forces) advocate for cleaning up the character. I think abandoning this effort because everything is relativistic and we are living the life of an avatar, and this experience is one to enjoy, is a fair counter, but I think, kind of like in that thread where the dude was like "I want to try hard drugs because it feels like this is part of my karma". Many people responded - that's not so wise ... why was that?

If there is the mystic that teaches love, transcendence, peace, and the mystic that fulfills their desires for dominance and control. If both of these are god playing a game. Which one do you want to be? I think I want to be the one which causes less suffering. But then why am I this way? What brought my nature towards this tendency? My point is that we have choice. And therefore our actions matter. 

I have heard through my teachers, who studied with an Arhat, that even at the level of a buddha, there are still truths unknown, further things to know. Which is to say, that even with an 'enlightenment' experience, or a psychedelic exploration, there is still things unknown.

And who is to say that our experiences, whether through psychedelics or through wisdom teachers, are not just what we need to hear rather than the truth of it all. Who's to say that these dimensional beings or experiences with channellers, or transcendental perceptions are the truth holders, and not being corralled by higher forces? This may not be the case, but who's to say that's not part of the bigger picture?

 

But that being said - I feel yah! There is a level of asceticism and rejection of life that doesn't feel so necessary.

Edited 4 hours ago by Jordan of the Shire

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, BlessedLion said:

I'd argue this is 2 sides of the same coin.

 

Fun fact, woman are 40-50% more likely to orgasm with their lover than their secure partner. Therefore proving the theory that they cheat like this to secure what they percieve as better genes. The book "Red Queen" goes into this in depth

Why does this prove that she cheats specifically with the subconscious goal of getting better genes? 

Wouldn't that point more simply to novelty leading to more dopamine, excitement and thus orgasms in novel sexual encounters similar to the Coolidge effect observed for males? 

I also suspect that multiple women dating the same male would be more likely to orgasm than women in a monogamous relationships due to the enhanced arousal that comes from the intrasexual female competition. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LordFall

[Xonas Pitfall]

2 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

That is a good point, thanks. 

I do feel like biologically- Women are more wired to find quality partners due to the risks and timeline of giving birth whereas men look for quantity due to the low risk and ease of spreading their genes. This has been proven. But you are correct that men also want exclusivity to ensure it is actually their genes being passed on.

Therefore, The "have your cake and eat it too" situation for Men is to have access to multiple women that are exclusively their sexual partners, we see this done by many Kings of the "GREAT CIVILAZATIONS" who had concubines of up to 1,000 women that they would ensiminate 2-3 times a day. From China, Babylon and Inca, this was the case. 

The female version of having her cake and eating it too, is to have a good provider husband who is relaible and safe, while getting the better more attractive genes from another man, a lover architype so she has the best genes along with security to raise it, Cucking her husband, which is actually very common, Red Queen book really goes deep into this.

But you make a great point. In the monogamous societies we live in today, exclusive commitment from both is the ideal for both, but on some lizard brain level it's not the "best" for their genes and offspring

I’ll try my best to explain this. But this is more about “bargaining power,” and depending on the society we live in, men and women will have different types of bargaining power. Or you can just say “power.”

Basically, if you let ego run loose, both genders, humans in general, would love the scenario of: “I want one partner who will work for me and give me money; I want one partner who is the most hot and attractive and really gets my orgasms going; I want someone who has the same hobbies as me and whom I can talk to. I want one for this hobby. I want one for this activity. I want one to make me laugh. I want one to do my housework, etc. Gosh, if I could just flip and switch around and never get bored, that’d be ideal! Infinite love for me, infinite entertainment, and infinite resources for me!”

Ego itself with no self-reflection or "empathy" will be very much like an idealistic child: “Me, me, me. I want this and this and this.” You want as many goodies for yourself as possible while avoiding as much responsibility toward others as possible, whether that means commitment, doing hard work, or having others do the work for you, etc. Human condition and Ego 101.

So when you add gender, it is really just what society conditions you toward + your actual bargaining power, expectations, survival needs, and perhaps some biological factors. But I’d be careful not to over-map it onto biology, because a lot of people use biology as an excuse to avoid seeing the generic ego mechanisms that are present in all humans and somehow turn them into a much larger gender issue.

Since, societally, women were more largely removed from resource-gathering and resource-controlling power, on both sides you would have:

• Men using women for labor, status, or resources: This can take many forms, such as relying on women for domestic labor, household management, social positioning, caregiving, or other forms of unpaid work. Men might benefit from women’s beauty and labour (through pimping, modelling, sex work, service businesses under this wing, etc), social connections, or labor while receiving most of the recognition or resources themselves. In some cases, women’s work was credited to men, or women had to operate through a man’s name or authority to gain access to opportunities. In more personal relationships, a man might rely on a woman to maintain his home and family while he focuses on his career, or ends up having a second family, mistresses, etc.
• Women using men for labor, status, or resources: Relying on men for financial support, education, housing, protection, social connections, or other resources. Women were restricted from working, owning property, or accessing education independently, making dependence on men necessary for survival. In other cases, women may intentionally seek out men primarily for their wealth, status, security, or connections, while contributing less to the relationship themselves. This can range from ordinary dependence within a relationship to more exploitative behaviors, such as gold-digging or using relationships primarily for financial gain.

So you can see that both genders can follow the same pattern, because again, this isn’t fundamentally a gendered issue. It is ego. Ego will try to use whatever it can to get access to power, resources, sex, survival, and safety. That is the common rule. Gender is really just another overlay through which ego operates. The gender position you are born into is simply one of the cards you are dealt.

The same goes for fun, lust and sex.

• A woman can also have preferences and have some “fuckboys” or boy toys who make her hornier than her “provider.” She might enjoy the sexual side more with one person, while choosing to stay with another person because that person is more reputable, stable, noble, useful, or beneficial to her in some other way. In the same way, a man might cheat with a mistress because he enjoys the sexual side more, while not wanting to actually be with the mistress because his wife is more reputable, stable, “pure,” noble, or useful to him in other ways.
• Again, the same pattern can exist on both sides. Both men and women love to have sex and have fun. Then, depending on the society, women might be more or less sexually shamed or repressed compared with men. That is why you might see higher divorce rates or more promiscuity as societies become more sexually free, because you are removing some of the blocks and restrictions placed on ego.

And the same, of course, applies to this topic.

If you let women’s egos roam completely free, you can end up with millions of simps who want to pay for her on the off chance that she might get with them. She can then find a non-attached friends-with-benefits partner whenever she finds someone attractive, or she can have one guy take care of her survival, money, and resources while she chooses to play around and fuck whoever she wants on the side.

If you let men’s egos roam completely free, he can keep a wife who functions as his secure, safe-space home while having second families and mistresses on the side. Or he can have a harem. Or you might have women desperately trying to do favors for him, work for him, provide domestic labor, or perform other kinds of labor in exchange for access to him, all the while he doesn't commit to a single one of them because he simply can.

Again, this is all ego.

If you let ego roam completely free, then yes, ego will want people to do labor for it, get money for it, provide resources for it, and give it as much sex, fun, good times as possible with the people it finds the hottest or most desirable.

"I want everything with the least commitment and responsibility on my end, but ideally, all of you are so obsessed with me and committed to me that you keep giving me goodies permanently!" And some egos will use restrictive laws, force, financial isolation, social isolation, or anything else they can to make this happen.

The whole point of love is to experience actual depth and see the other person as an equal, as someone you do not simply want to control, use, abuse, swing around, or extract value from.

But people often mistake ego-driven forms of attachment, desire, dependency, or “love” for actual forms of deeper, more genuine love.

People need to first have an awakening to ego and survival, and how much they control 99% of people’s behavior. Gender is much more secondary to all relationship issues.

If you’re still attached to some sort of fantasy where you want to be a harem king, being served by everyone, then you’ve dropped all notions of genuine love. Your best bet at making that fantasy a reality is to simply own what you’re doing and find vulnerable, desperate, needy people to fulfill your fantasy.

Edited 3 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Mellowmarsh]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

The whole one woman thing just never worked for me. 

I must have misunderstood you because I was under the impression that you were a one woman man at heart, it seems that I was very wrong. When I said previously that I’d love to be with a man like you it was because I’m a one man woman. Now I feel like I’ve totally misunderstood you. Therefore I feel I must retract what I said to you up thread, because I feel foolish to even have made that public, my point is , there’s just no way I could be with someone like yourself, never. You are now saying that you are wired to be with multiple partners, which is not the kind of man I would ever want to be with. 
 

 I just wanted to clear this miscommunication up with you, because it’s already in writing all over this thread, so I just needed to clear up any confusion, because the confusion was totally on my end, not yours, I was the one who got you wrong, that said, have a wonderful life, and all the best for you now and for whatever the future has in store for you. Be happy. 😃 

[LordFall]

7 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

I must have misunderstood you because I was under the impression that you were a one woman man at heart, it seems that I was very wrong. When I said previously that I’d love to be with a man like you it was because I’m a one man woman. Now I feel like I’ve totally misunderstood you. Therefore I feel I must retract what I said to you up thread, because I feel foolish to even have made that public, my point is , there’s just no way I could be with someone like yourself, never. You are now saying that you are wired to be with multiple partners, which is not the kind of man I would ever want to be with. 
 

 I just wanted to clear this miscommunication up with you, because it’s already in writing all over this thread, so I just needed to clear up any confusion, because the confusion was totally on my end, not yours, I was the one who got you wrong, that said, have a wonderful life, and all the best for you now and for whatever the future has in store for you. Be happy. 😃 

A more tragic love story than Darth Vader and Padme  

Now @Inliytened1 will really turn to the dark side and join me in getting 4 girlfriends 😈

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

If this "biological need to spread the seed" were a real proven thing, wouldn't men be more frequently and enthusiastically skeeting into cups and donating to sperm banks? 🙃 

[Mellowmarsh]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Lordfall. I’d already made it clear to him, that I didn’t want to be physical with a man anymore, so he already knew that about me before he officially asked me to be his princess. To be honest, I don’t think Inliytened1 really knows what he wants, if truth be known.

[LordFall]

4 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

If this "biological need to spread the seed" were a real proven thing, wouldn't men be more frequently and enthusiastically skeeting into cups and donating to sperm banks? 🙃 

The conscious mind and subconscious work in separate ways and have different triggers. A plastic cup and four women offering themselves to you are going to be completely different experiences.

There are men that do this though, the Telegram founder is famous for having over 100 children due to sperm donations. There are a few cases I heard of but I don't remember them off the top of my head.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Lordfall. I’d already made it clear to him, that I didn’t want to be physical with a man anymore, so he already knew that about me before he officially asked me to be his princess. To be honest, I don’t think Inliytened1 really knows what he wants, if truth be known.

You're still my princess. But I gotta use the tool if you know what I mean.  So..if you are on board with polyamory we can pick up where we left off 😀 my wonderful Melanie.

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

13 minutes ago, LordFall said:

A more tragic love story than Darth Vader and Padme  

Now @Inliytened1 will really turn to the dark side and join me in getting 4 girlfriends 😈

I've already juggled four girlfriends just not labeled as such.  You just have to make sure the schedules don't overlap.  And I don't have 4 houses so they can't be coming by unannounced. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

You're still my princess. But I gotta use the tool if you know what I mean.  So..if you are on board with polygamory we can pick up where we left off 😀 my wonderful Melanie.

Yes I totally understand that, but my point being, you should never have asked me to be your princess, already knowing I have no intentions of being physical with you. I wasn’t going to change my mind about that. But I now get the sense you’d hoped I would. I could be wrong. 

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Yes I totally understand that, but my point being, you should never have asked me to be your princess, already knowing I have no intentions of being physical with you. I wasn’t going to change my mind about that. But I now get the sense you’d hoped I would. I could be wrong. 

I winged it as usual. Lordfall pegged me.

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Mellowmarsh]

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You're still my princess. But I gotta use the tool if you know what I mean.  So..if you are on board with polygamory we can pick up where we left off 😀 my wonderful Melanie.

All I can say is you must be endowed with infinite stamina. Lucky you. I wish you all the best, have fun. 😂

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

All I can say is you must be endowed with infinite stamina. Lucky you. I wish you all the best, have fun. 😂

The day I have to buy viagra..is the day..I continue on!!!

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[LordFall]

14 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Yes I totally understand that, but my point being, you should never have asked me to be your princess, already knowing I have no intentions of being physical with you. I wasn’t going to change my mind about that. But I now get the sense you’d hoped I would. I could be wrong. 

You can be the head of his household and he can have concubines to manage his sexual needs. This is a classic arrangement that worked for royalty throughout history. 

[Mellowmarsh]

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

The day I have to buy viagra..is the day..I continue on!!!

Of course, what ever works for you, go for it. 
 

I’m only ever doing what works for me, so it’s all good, my wonderful darling Prince Charming. 😝 

[Mellowmarsh]

3 minutes ago, LordFall said:

You can be the head of his household and he can have concubines to manage his sexual needs. This is a classic arrangement that worked for royalty throughout history. 

I’m not that naive to not know this common knowledge, it’s as old as time itself, so fill your boots. It’s your God given birthright.

[Cosmin Mihai]

There is this lady Judith Rich Harris who has an interesting point in the book "The Nurture Assumption": The part of the brain that handles a relation is different than the part of the brain that handles a group.

In other words the relation mechanics are different than the group mechanics psychologically. We can then extrapolate to the polyamory experience: it is just a different experience than being in a relationship.